trustAgentMart's public track record: paying owners, verified reviews, how often purchases worked, tokens and minutes saved. Real numbers only.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| passport_token | No | Not needed on this public tool; accepted and ignored. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {}
+]Input schema / $schemaRemoved value: -"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falseInput schema / properties / passport_tokenAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Not needed on this public tool; accepted and ignored.",
+ "maxLength": 200,
+ "type": "string"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish read-only, non-destructive, closed-world behavior. The description adds that the data is public and claims 'real numbers only', which signals no synthetic data, but it does not cover freshness, scope, rate limits, or response format.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the resource and metrics; 'Real numbers only' adds a memorable trust qualifier without any fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-required-parameter public read tool with annotations and no output schema, the description enumerates the returned metrics and clarifies public access. It could say more about response shape or recency, but it is largely sufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% and explicitly describes the single passport_token as 'not needed on this public tool; accepted and ignored.' The description does not discuss parameters, but the schema fully handles this no-op parameter, so the baseline of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states that it shows AgentMart's public track record and enumerates the specific metrics returned (paying owners, verified reviews, purchase success rate, tokens and minutes saved), so the resource is clear. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools such as list_reviews, but the aggregate trust-metrics scope is still distinguishable.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no named alternatives, and no prerequisites. The reader must infer that this tool is for checking shop credibility before a purchase or when evaluating trust.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.